Not quite. There are two types of allegations, the one above and also students voting at home and in their uni town.
No doubt we need a tightening up on all this, especially registering in more than one place. With postal ballot being widely adopted the is no need for this arcane aspect of the system.
I agree students should register in one place.
The other slightly odd aspect of the present system is that students can legally vote twice in Local Elections (I think the same is true of second home owners). But not General Elections s, of course.
I see no reason for this. Students (or second home owners) should be able to vote in Local elections once (like everyone else)
Do they pay local council tax in both areas? If not, then yes, vote once. if they do, then they should be able to vote once in each council area they have to pay council tax in
Full time students are exempt from Council Tax.
So according to your logic, they should have no vote.
However, Tony Blair, who owns innumerable properties around the country, can vote innumerable times.
Only once per Council still right?
I thought the reason you can vote in multiple local authorities is that they are legally entirely separate elections. It's like voting in a local election and a general election on the same day. The votes cast in one don't affect the other.
The abscence of engineers and scientists is surely another piece of evidence that politics, like character, is dispositional not intellectual.
The 'two cultures' problem is hardly new but the emerging genetic science makes it even more fascinating: and very relevant to politics.
Given that PBers include quite a few 'quant people' it would be interesting to know what any of them may feel about this issue.
A lot of great scientists find it difficult to communicate with people outside their field.
And as a generalisation, I'd say they tend to have a world outlook that makes very little allowance for human nature.
Those are big drawbacks for politicians.
But engineers are in many ways the opposite: they have to work with the real world, as the real word doesn't bend to their will.
I think there might be something deeper: good scientists and engineers believe in process, in testing and planning. These are anathema to many politicians, and often the political process itself.
I wouldn't read too much into this, the people most in touch with public opinion are hairdressers and bar staff, very few go on to be MPs.
Personally, I think it is more than most scientists and engineers I have met over my life (I was a computer scientist, programmer, manager etc etc) tend not to like any aspect of self-promotion, especially if it involves over-promoting and over-selling yourself. Obviously there are exceptions.
Politics tends to the opposite.
The culture at my (grammar) school was that self promotion was infradig and uncool.
The abscence of engineers and scientists is surely another piece of evidence that politics, like character, is dispositional not intellectual.
In my forty years of working with scientists on public issues, it is striking how few of them have much knowledge of, or interest in, how the country they live in works. There is some, highly controversial, evidence that there is a genetic element to the understanding of other people, it is not evenly distributed amongst the population. Is Mr. Meeks observation of this absence of scientists/engineers in the house, in his excellent article, further evidence for this theory? Whilst there are many great scientists who have taken an active part in politics, my suspicion is that they are not proportional to their presence in the general population.
The 'two cultures' problem is hardly new but the emerging genetic science makes it even more fascinating: and very relevant to politics.
Given that PBers include quite a few 'quant people' it would be interesting to know what any of them may feel about this issue.
A lot of great scientists find it difficult to communicate with people outside their field.
And as a generalisation, I'd say they tend to have a world outlook that makes very little allowance for human nature.
Those are big drawbacks for politicians.
But engineers are in many ways the opposite: they have to work with the real world, as the real word doesn't bend to their will.
I think there might be something deeper: good scientists and engineers believe in process, in testing and planning. These are anathema to many politicians, and often the political process itself.
The great thing about science and engineering is that there's a right answer and a wrong answer.
In politics, the right answer or wrong answer is much less clear.
And even if the best answer is clear, it may be "politically unacceptable" to implement. Scientists hate that kind of thing.
Not quite. There are two types of allegations, the one above and also students voting at home and in their uni town.
No doubt we need a tightening up on all this, especially registering in more than one place. With postal ballot being widely adopted the is no need for this arcane aspect of the system.
I agree students should register in one place.
The other slightly odd aspect of the present system is that students can legally vote twice in Local Elections (I think the same is true of second home owners). But not General Elections, of course.
I see no reason for this. Students (or second home owners) should be able to vote in Local elections once (like everyone else)
A local election is a local election, and no-one can vote 'twice'. A different local election is a different election.
Barring students from participating in the local politics of their university town would be utterly wrong. And, to be consistent, would require a similar clampdown on the many others in society with two homes.
I think it is wrong for undergraduate students to vote in their University towns.
They rarely spend half the year in the town, and their interest in many local matters is very limited.
You should vote where you live most of the time.
(The same is true for second home owners, it is completely wrong for them to be voting in towns where they spend four or five weeks of the year).
Thereby giving anyone actually caught an instant defence. Maybe it won't be so easy to get some prosecutions after all.
Defence? How? By "collected" they mean "stole" and all that does is add to the offences committed.
You are a student who voted at home and at university. When challenged you simply point to the article and say that your university vote was used by some random Corbynite, since you didn't use it.
Since most students vote at the same polling station, and no-one is going to risk impersonating more than one voter at a station, I would be very surprised if there was any industrial-scale personation going on, despite the obvious paranoia of Tory MPs.
Oh, I see what you mean. Good point, thanks. I was looking at it backwards/
Therefore voter photo ID is the way forward.
Photo ID will be very effective at suppressing the elderly vote. Should be very handy in the second Brexit referendum.
The abscence of engineers and scientists is surely another piece of evidence that politics, like character, is dispositional not intellectual.
The 'two cultures' problem is hardly new but the emerging genetic science makes it even more fascinating: and very relevant to politics.
Given that PBers include quite a few 'quant people' it would be interesting to know what any of them may feel about this issue.
A lot of great scientists find it difficult to communicate with people outside their field.
And as a generalisation, I'd say they tend to have a world outlook that makes very little allowance for human nature.
Those are big drawbacks for politicians.
But engineers are in many ways the opposite: they have to work with the real world, as the real word doesn't bend to their will.
I think there might be something deeper: good scientists and engineers believe in process, in testing and planning. These are anathema to many politicians, and often the political process itself.
I wouldn't read too much into this, the people most in touch with public opinion are hairdressers and bar staff, very few go on to be MPs.
Personally, I think it is more than most scientists and engineers I have met over my life (I was a computer scientist, programmer, manager etc etc) tend not to like any aspect of self-promotion, especially if it involves over-promoting and over-selling yourself. Obviously there are exceptions.
Politics tends to the opposite.
The culture at my (grammar) school was that self promotion was infradig and uncool.
Thereby giving anyone actually caught an instant defence. Maybe it won't be so easy to get some prosecutions after all.
Defence? How? By "collected" they mean "stole" and all that does is add to the offences committed.
You are a student who voted at home and at university. When challenged you simply point to the article and say that your university vote was used by some random Corbynite, since you didn't use it.
Since most students vote at the same polling station, and no-one is going to risk impersonating more than one voter at a station, I would be very surprised if there was any industrial-scale personation going on, despite the obvious paranoia of Tory MPs.
Oh, I see what you mean. Good point, thanks. I was looking at it backwards/
Therefore voter photo ID is the way forward.
Photo ID will be very effective at suppressing the elderly vote. Should be very handy in the second Brexit referendum.
Why? Don't (free) OAP bus passes have photos on them?
That would be really cunning voter suppression by the Left. Support compulsory photo ID for voting and then take away free OAP bus passes
Not quite. There are two types of allegations, the one above and also students voting at home and in their uni town.
No doubt we need a tightening up on all this, especially registering in more than one place. With postal ballot being widely adopted the is no need for this arcane aspect of the system.
I agree students should register in one place.
The other slightly odd aspect of the present system is that students can legally vote twice in Local Elections (I think the same is true of second home owners). But not General Elections, of course.
I see no reason for this. Students (or second home owners) should be able to vote in Local elections once (like everyone else)
A local election is a local election, and no-one can vote 'twice'. A different local election is a different election.
Barring students from participating in the local politics of their university town would be utterly wrong. And, to be consistent, would require a similar clampdown on the many others in society with two homes.
I think it is wrong for undergraduate students to vote in their University towns.
They rarely spend half the year in the town, and their interest in many local matters is very limited.
You should vote where you live most of the time.
(The same is true for second home owners, it is completely wrong for them to be voting in towns where they spend four or five weeks of the year).
If you are only there for four or five weeks a year, you aren't even supposed to be on the register under the new rules, since that is hardly a home.
However there are plenty of people with two homes - a weekend country retreat, for example, who currently register twice and are able to vote in all local elections.
Thereby giving anyone actually caught an instant defence. Maybe it won't be so easy to get some prosecutions after all.
Defence? How? By "collected" they mean "stole" and all that does is add to the offences committed.
You are a student who voted at home and at university. When challenged you simply point to the article and say that your university vote was used by some random Corbynite, since you didn't use it.
Since most students vote at the same polling station, and no-one is going to risk impersonating more than one voter at a station, I would be very surprised if there was any industrial-scale personation going on, despite the obvious paranoia of Tory MPs.
Oh, I see what you mean. Good point, thanks. I was looking at it backwards/
Therefore voter photo ID is the way forward.
Photo ID will be very effective at suppressing the elderly vote. Should be very handy in the second Brexit referendum.
Why? Don't (free) OAP bus passes have photos on them?
That would be really cunning voter suppression by the Left. Support compulsory photo ID for voting and then take away free OAP bus passes
Or make Instagram the only acceptable form of Photo ID
Not quite. There are two types of allegations, the one above and also students voting at home and in their uni town.
No doubt we need a tightening up on all this, especially registering in more than one place. With postal ballot being widely adopted the is no need for this arcane aspect of the system.
I agree students should register in one place.
The other slightly odd aspect of the present system is that students can legally vote twice in Local Elections (I think the same is true of second home owners). But not General Elections s, of course.
I see no reason for this. Students (or second home owners) should be able to vote in Local elections once (like everyone else)
Do they pay local council tax in both areas? If not, then yes, vote once. if they do, then they should be able to vote once in each council area they have to pay council tax in
Full time students are exempt from Council Tax.
So according to your logic, they should have no vote.
However, Tony Blair, who owns innumerable properties around the country, can vote innumerable times.
Only once per Council still right?
I thought the reason you can vote in multiple local authorities is that they are legally entirely separate elections. It's like voting in a local election and a general election on the same day. The votes cast in one don't affect the other.
Indeed, and yes. With by-elections tending to be held on the same day as other elections, and many areas having two-tier local councils or mayoralties, it is theoretically possible to have a whole shaft of votes to cast on the same day, in multiple locations.
The "only vote once in local elections" argument is a nonsense, not least because I bet people wouldn't object if person X with the two homes voted once in a provincial local election this year and once in a London local election next year. As would someone who had moved to London in the year between the elections.
It's luck of the draw whether local elections fall on the same or different dates, depending on where your second home might be.
Thereby giving anyone actually caught an instant defence. Maybe it won't be so easy to get some prosecutions after all.
Defence? How? By "collected" they mean "stole" and all that does is add to the offences committed.
You are a student who voted at home and at university. When challenged you simply point to the article and say that your university vote was used by some random Corbynite, since you didn't use it.
Since most students vote at the same polling station, and no-one is going to risk impersonating more than one voter at a station, I would be very surprised if there was any industrial-scale personation going on, despite the obvious paranoia of Tory MPs.
Oh, I see what you mean. Good point, thanks. I was looking at it backwards/
Therefore voter photo ID is the way forward.
Photo ID will be very effective at suppressing the elderly vote. Should be very handy in the second Brexit referendum.
Why? Don't (free) OAP bus passes have photos on them?
That would be really cunning voter suppression by the Left. Support compulsory photo ID for voting and then take away free OAP bus passes
Or make Instagram the only acceptable form of Photo ID
Or your BBC telly licence.
That'd cull a few of us reprobates from the electoral roll.
The abscence of engineers and scientists is surely another piece of evidence that politics, like character, is dispositional not intellectual.
In my that they are not proportional to their presence in the general population.
The 'two cultures' problem is hardly new but the emerging genetic science makes it even more fascinating: and very relevant to politics.
Given that PBers include quite a few 'quant people' it would be interesting to know what any of them may feel about this issue.
A lot of great scientists find it difficult to communicate with people outside their field.
And as a generalisation, I'd say they tend to have a world outlook that makes very little allowance for human nature.
Those are big drawbacks for politicians.
But engineers are in many ways the opposite: they have to work with the real world, as the real word doesn't bend to their will.
I think there might be something deeper: good scientists and engineers believe in process, in testing and planning. These are anathema to many politicians, and often the political process itself.
I wouldn't read too much into this, the people most in touch with public opinion are hairdressers and bar staff, very few go on to be MPs.
Personally, I think it is more than most scientists and engineers I have met over my life (I was a computer scientist, programmer, manager etc etc) tend not to like any aspect of self-promotion, especially if it involves over-promoting and over-selling yourself. Obviously there are exceptions.
Politics tends to the opposite.
You should go to the US!!
You cannot really be a part-time scientist or engineer. It's full on. To get anywhere in politics you have to do a lot of donkey work and attend a whole heap of meetings in order to build contacts and get noticed - and have the skill-sets to do that. This suits people in professions like the law and teaching, as well as those who have spent their whole working lives in and around the political world. Also, if you take five or 10 years out from, say, the law, you can catch up again relatively easily. Catching up on 10 years of developments in molecular physics or particle engineering is going to be a whole lot trickier.
In China, the entire politburo have engineering/science backgrounds. But they do not have democracy to worry about.
Not quite. There are two types of allegations, the one above and also students voting at home and in their uni town.
No doubt we need a tightening up on all this, especially registering in more than one place. With postal ballot being widely adopted the is no need for this arcane aspect of the system.
I agree students should register in one place.
The other slightly odd aspect of the present system is that students can legally vote twice in Local Elections (I think the same is true of second home owners). But not General Elections s, of course.
I see no reason for this. Students (or second home owners) should be able to vote in Local elections once (like everyone else)
Do they pay local council tax in both areas? If not, then yes, vote once. if they do, then they should be able to vote once in each council area they have to pay council tax in
Full time students are exempt from Council Tax.
So according to your logic, they should have no vote.
However, Tony Blair, who owns innumerable properties around the country, can vote innumerable times.
Only, now, if he genuinely uses them all as homes (lives there regularly for a significant part of the year). Owning a property is no longer sufficient to justify registration, as it used to be in the days when many tenants found that their landlord had registered him or herself at their home address.
Re- BBC salaries. Whilst I am not really into sport at all and do not personally dislike Gary Lineker, I simply cannot understand why the BBC sees it as appropriate to pay him £2million per annum of licence-payers' money. He has never been a naturally talented broadcaster unlike - say - David Dimbleby or Paxman, and I find it difficult to believe that people tune into a BBC channel on account of his appearing there. When he first became Match of the Day anchorman back in 1996 he was utterly dreadful, and significant resources were used to train him up. Whilst he has improved over the years , even today he is no better than'adequate '- well short of the likes of Des Lynam and David Coleman. Why on earth hasthe BBC effectively wasted so much money on him when there were - and are - others more naturally skilled to do the job and who would willingly do so for a fraction of what he is paid?
Gary makes MOTD a pleasure with his natural wit and charm. His blatant partisanship for Leicester City is purely a bonus
Thereby giving anyone actually caught an instant defence. Maybe it won't be so easy to get some prosecutions after all.
Defence? How? By "collected" they mean "stole" and all that does is add to the offences committed.
You are a student who voted at home and at university. When challenged you simply point to the article and say that your university vote was used by some random Corbynite, since you didn't use it.
Since most students vote at the same polling station, and no-one is going to risk impersonating more than one voter at a station, I would be very surprised if there was any industrial-scale personation going on, despite the obvious paranoia of Tory MPs.
Oh, I see what you mean. Good point, thanks. I was looking at it backwards/
Therefore voter photo ID is the way forward.
Photo ID will be very effective at suppressing the elderly vote. Should be very handy in the second Brexit referendum.
Why? Don't (free) OAP bus passes have photos on them?
That would be really cunning voter suppression by the Left. Support compulsory photo ID for voting and then take away free OAP bus passes
Or make Instagram the only acceptable form of Photo ID
In which case, judging from Instagram, you will need two photos of yourself - one before, and another after you have lost the weight.
Given nearly 30 million votes were cast, everyone ties themselves up in knots over what is a tiny problem and probably made no difference (except perhaps NE Fife).
Lots of indignation about students voting but the postal/proxy vote system is also flawed and open to corruption. Short of everyone being compelled to attend a polling station who wishes to vote and a retinal eye scan or similar being conducted for every voter, there is no guaranteed corruption-free system.
Democracy has always had corrupt tendencies whether through restriction of the franchise or the buying and selling of votes. We now have online vote swapping which while not illegal certainly gets some on here quite irate.
I may be naïve but I'm of the view the overwhelming majority of votes are freely and fairly obtained. Short of spending insane amounts of money on ID cards and other gadgets (which we're told we don't have (the money) and don't need (the cards)) we'll have to muddle on tightening and tweaking the system and ensuring both individuals and parties engaging in corrupt practice are prosecuted to the full extent of the law.
Given nearly 30 million votes were cast, everyone ties themselves up in knots over what is a tiny problem and probably made no difference (except perhaps NE Fife).
Lots of indignation about students voting but the postal/proxy vote system is also flawed and open to corruption. Short of everyone being compelled to attend a polling station who wishes to vote and a retinal eye scan or similar being conducted for every voter, there is no guaranteed corruption-free system.
Democracy has always had corrupt tendencies whether through restriction of the franchise or the buying and selling of votes. We now have online vote swapping which while not illegal certainly gets some on here quite irate.
I may be naïve but I'm of the view the overwhelming majority of votes are freely and fairly obtained. Short of spending insane amounts of money on ID cards and other gadgets (which we're told we don't have (the money) and don't need (the cards)) we'll have to muddle on tightening and tweaking the system and ensuring both individuals and parties engaging in corrupt practice are prosecuted to the full extent of the law.
Parties still have the right to appoint observers (polling agents) to sit inside the polling station - a right barely exercised outside Northern Ireland, and even there rarely nowadays. That provision was always intended to be the first line of defence against personation. But, of course, it would be a complete waste of time for any activist to spend all of polling day. (but incidentally does explain why the rules against seeing the numbers on the back of ballot papers at election counts are so written).
Given nearly 30 million votes were cast, everyone ties themselves up in knots over what is a tiny problem and probably made no difference (except perhaps NE Fife).
Lots of indignation about students voting but the postal/proxy vote system is also flawed and open to corruption. Short of everyone being compelled to attend a polling station who wishes to vote and a retinal eye scan or similar being conducted for every voter, there is no guaranteed corruption-free system.
Democracy has always had corrupt tendencies whether through restriction of the franchise or the buying and selling of votes. We now have online vote swapping which while not illegal certainly gets some on here quite irate.
I may be naïve but I'm of the view the overwhelming majority of votes are freely and fairly obtained. Short of spending insane amounts of money on ID cards and other gadgets (which we're told we don't have (the money) and don't need (the cards)) we'll have to muddle on tightening and tweaking the system and ensuring both individuals and parties engaging in corrupt practice are prosecuted to the full extent of the law.
Yes, agree with all that. So just take some photo ID along and job jobbed.
The abscence of engineers and scientists is surely another piece of evidence that politics, like character, is dispositional not intellectual.
In my forty years of working with scientists on public issues, it is striking how few of them have much knowledge of, or interest in, how the country they live in works. There is some, highly controversial, evidence that there is a genetic element to the understanding of other people, it is not evenly distributed amongst the population. Is Mr. Meeks observation of this absence of scientists/engineers in the house, in his excellent article, further evidence for this theory? Whilst there are many great scientists who have taken an active part in politics, my suspicion is that they are not proportional to their presence in the general population.
The 'two cultures' problem is hardly new but the emerging genetic science makes it even more fascinating: and very relevant to politics.
Given that PBers include quite a few 'quant people' it would be interesting to know what any of them may feel about this issue.
A lot of great scientists find it difficult to communicate with people outside their field.
And as a generalisation, I'd say they tend to have a world outlook that makes very little allowance for human nature.
Those are big drawbacks for politicians.
But engineers are in many ways the opposite: they have to work with the real world, as the real word doesn't bend to their will.
I think there might be something deeper: good scientists and engineers believe in process, in testing and planning. These are anathema to many politicians, and often the political process itself.
The great thing about science and engineering is that there's a right answer and a wrong answer.
In politics, the right answer or wrong answer is much less clear.
I'm an engineer. I'd say that applies to science, but not to engineering.
Engineering is much more about applying theory to the real world, and balancing out resource, physical, social and economic constraints in order to achieve it.
Given nearly 30 million votes were cast, everyone ties themselves up in knots over what is a tiny problem and probably made no difference (except perhaps NE Fife).
Lots of indignation about students voting but the postal/proxy vote system is also flawed and open to corruption. Short of everyone being compelled to attend a polling station who wishes to vote and a retinal eye scan or similar being conducted for every voter, there is no guaranteed corruption-free system.
Democracy has always had corrupt tendencies whether through restriction of the franchise or the buying and selling of votes. We now have online vote swapping which while not illegal certainly gets some on here quite irate.
I may be naïve but I'm of the view the overwhelming majority of votes are freely and fairly obtained. Short of spending insane amounts of money on ID cards and other gadgets (which we're told we don't have (the money) and don't need (the cards)) we'll have to muddle on tightening and tweaking the system and ensuring both individuals and parties engaging in corrupt practice are prosecuted to the full extent of the law.
Personation is probably extremely rare (outside Northern Ireland and Tower Hamlets). It's high risk/low return. A few students might do it for laughs.
People who commit fraud will mostly focus on postal votes.
Given nearly 30 million votes were cast, everyone ties themselves up in knots over what is a tiny problem and probably made no difference (except perhaps NE Fife).
Lots of indignation about students voting but the postal/proxy vote system is also flawed and open to corruption. Short of everyone being compelled to attend a polling station who wishes to vote and a retinal eye scan or similar being conducted for every voter, there is no guaranteed corruption-free system.
Democracy has always had corrupt tendencies whether through restriction of the franchise or the buying and selling of votes. We now have online vote swapping which while not illegal certainly gets some on here quite irate.
I may be naïve but I'm of the view the overwhelming majority of votes are freely and fairly obtained. Short of spending insane amounts of money on ID cards and other gadgets (which we're told we don't have (the money) and don't need (the cards)) we'll have to muddle on tightening and tweaking the system and ensuring both individuals and parties engaging in corrupt practice are prosecuted to the full extent of the law.
Personation is probably extremely rare (outside Northern Ireland and Tower Hamlets). It's high risk/low return. A few students might do it for laughs.
People who commit fraud will mostly focus on postal votes.
If you look at most count declarations, there is generally a handful of postal votes discounted because the signature on the return paper doesn't match the one on the application. Whether these purported fraudsters manage to get over this hurdle in any numbers is unclear, but would appear unlikely.
Thereby giving anyone actually caught an instant defence. Maybe it won't be so easy to get some prosecutions after all.
Not quite. There are two types of allegations, the one above and also students voting at home and in their uni town.
No doubt we need a tightening up on all this, especially registering in more than one place. With postal ballot being widely adopted the is no need for this arcane aspect of the system.
I cannot see a hung parliament co operating with pro-Tory voter suppression. If anyone has evidence ratber than anecdotes of students bragging on twitter then they should take it to the police under existing laws.
It's interesting how, to a Lib Dem, ensuring that people vote only once is "pro-Tory voter suppression".
It is already against the law.
Increasing the requirement for ID etc is classic voter suppression.
With postal voting on demand, making sure people are registered in only one place isn't.
Thereby giving anyone actually caught an instant defence. Maybe it won't be so easy to get some prosecutions after all.
Not quite. There are two types of allegations, the one above and also students voting at home and in their uni town.
No doubt we need a tightening up on all this, especially registering in more than one place. With postal ballot being widely adopted the is no need for this arcane aspect of the system.
I cannot see a hung parliament co operating with pro-Tory voter suppression. If anyone has evidence ratber than anecdotes of students bragging on twitter then they should take it to the police under existing laws.
It's interesting how, to a Lib Dem, ensuring that people vote only once is "pro-Tory voter suppression".
It is already against the law.
Increasing the requirement for ID etc is classic voter suppression.
With postal voting on demand, making sure people are registered in only one place isn't.
I don't think that is reasonable or realistic, for the reasons below. It would be better, now that voter registration is tied to NI numbers, to run a low level random check on a small sample of multiply-registered voters, with accompanying publicity and severe penalties for anyone caught.
As an interesting if minor technical aside, the ability to register more than once is of course a flaw in the 'fairness' argument advanced in support of boundary review 'equalisation', since clearly those constituencies with more second home/student registrations will tend to be drawn smaller (in terms of actual voters) as a consequence.
Thereby giving anyone actually caught an instant defence. Maybe it won't be so easy to get some prosecutions after all.
Not quite. There are two types of allegations, the one above and also students voting at home and in their uni town.
No doubt we need a tightening up on all this, especially registering in more than one place. With postal ballot being widely adopted the is no need for this arcane aspect of the system.
I cannot see a hung parliament co operating with pro-Tory voter suppression. If anyone has evidence ratber than anecdotes of students bragging on twitter then they should take it to the police under existing laws.
It's interesting how, to a Lib Dem, ensuring that people vote only once is "pro-Tory voter suppression".
It is already against the law.
Increasing the requirement for ID etc is classic voter suppression.
With postal voting on demand, making sure people are registered in only one place isn't.
I don't think that is reasonable or realistic, for the reasons below. It would be better, now that voter registration is tied to NI numbers, to run a low level random check on a small sample of multiply-registered voters, with accompanying publicity and severe penalties for anyone caught.
I've been calling for randomised checks into various parts of the electoral system. Not necessarily for prosecutions, but to attempt to discern the scale of any issues, if they exist. I'm amazed it's not already done.
Personation has to be fairly low-scale. Although it could just about feasibly have swung a handful of seats at the last GE, I see that as unlikely. What concerns me are more widespread forms of electoral fraud, and fortunately our current system makes that rather difficult.
Re- BBC salaries. Whilst I am not really into sport at all and do not personally dislike Gary Lineker, I simply cannot understand why the BBC sees it as appropriate to pay him £2million per annum of licence-payers' money. He has never been a naturally talented broadcaster unlike - say - David Dimbleby or Paxman, and I find it difficult to believe that people tune into a BBC channel on account of his appearing there. When he first became Match of the Day anchorman back in 1996 he was utterly dreadful, and significant resources were used to train him up. Whilst he has improved over the years , even today he is no better than'adequate '- well short of the likes of Des Lynam and David Coleman. Why on earth hasthe BBC effectively wasted so much money on him when there were - and are - others more naturally skilled to do the job and who would willingly do so for a fraction of what he is paid?
Gary Lineker benefited from the move -- I was going to say fad but it has survived two decades -- to using ex-players as pundits, across sports and broadcasters, as the older non-playing broadcasters retired.
Sort of on topic, one of the worst maiden speech's I've ever seen (if not the worst) was by the new Labour MP for Brighton Kemptown the other night, Lloyd Russell-Moyle: highly partisan, bitter, shrill and aggressive.
It was embarrassing to watch and made Dennis Skinner look reasonable.
Re- BBC salaries. Whilst I am not really into sport at all and do not personally dislike Gary Lineker, I simply cannot understand why the BBC sees it as appropriate to pay him £2million per annum of licence-payers' money. He has never been a naturally talented broadcaster unlike - say - David Dimbleby or Paxman, and I find it difficult to believe that people tune into a BBC channel on account of his appearing there. When he first became Match of the Day anchorman back in 1996 he was utterly dreadful, and significant resources were used to train him up. Whilst he has improved over the years , even today he is no better than'adequate '- well short of the likes of Des Lynam and David Coleman. Why on earth hasthe BBC effectively wasted so much money on him when there were - and are - others more naturally skilled to do the job and who would willingly do so for a fraction of what he is paid?
Gary Lineker benefited from the move -- I was going to say fad but it has survived two decades -- to using ex-players as pundits, across sports and broadcasters, as the older non-playing broadcasters retired.
I wonder if Gary's salary at BT Sport and Bein Sports is at a similar rate?
My issue with BBC paying big for say Lineker, isn't necessarily paying big, but if you compare their workload / role to those on Sky Sports. If you work for Sky, you do the pre-match week build up, the pre-game, the game, post match, you do the interactive analysis tech, the next day wrap-up, even Sky Sports news reports.
Lineker doesn't even do every MoTD, and also moonlights on BT Sport and previously Bein Sport.
Not quite. There are two types of allegations, the one above and also students voting at home and in their uni town.
No doubt we need a tightening up on all this, especially registering in more than one place. With postal ballot being widely adopted the is no need for this arcane aspect of the system.
I agree students should register in one place.
The other slightly odd aspect of the present system is that students can legally vote twice in Local Elections (I think the same is true of second home owners). But not General Elections, of course.
I see no reason for this. Students (or second home owners) should be able to vote in Local elections once (like everyone else)
A local election is a local election, and no-one can vote 'twice'. A different local election is a different election.
Barring students from participating in the local politics of their university town would be utterly wrong. And, to be consistent, would require a similar clampdown on the many others in society with two homes.
I think it is wrong for undergraduate students to vote in their University towns.
They rarely spend half the year in the town, and their interest in many local matters is very limited.
You should vote where you live most of the time.
(The same is true for second home owners, it is completely wrong for them to be voting in towns where they spend four or five weeks of the year).
I would have thought most university students spend much more time at university than not? The only exception would be Oxbridge I think...
Thereby giving anyone actually caught an instant defence. Maybe it won't be so easy to get some prosecutions after all.
Defence? How? By "collected" they mean "stole" and all that does is add to the offences committed.
You are a student who voted at home and at university. When challenged you simply point to the article and say that your university vote was used by some random Corbynite, since you didn't use it.
Since most students vote at the same polling station, and no-one is going to risk impersonating more than one voter at a station, I would be very surprised if there was any industrial-scale personation going on, despite the obvious paranoia of Tory MPs.
Oh, I see what you mean. Good point, thanks. I was looking at it backwards/
Therefore voter photo ID is the way forward.
Photo ID will be very effective at suppressing the elderly vote. Should be very handy in the second Brexit referendum.
You really think there will be a Deal-or-no-deal referendum?
Thereby giving anyone actually caught an instant defence. Maybe it won't be so easy to get some prosecutions after all.
Not quite. There are two types of allegations, the one above and also students voting at home and in their uni town.
No doubt we need a tightening up on all this, especially registering in more than one place. With postal ballot being widely adopted the is no need for this arcane aspect of the system.
I cannot see a hung parliament co operating with pro-Tory voter suppression. If anyone has evidence ratber than anecdotes of students bragging on twitter then they should take it to the police under existing laws.
It's interesting how, to a Lib Dem, ensuring that people vote only once is "pro-Tory voter suppression".
It is already against the law.
Increasing the requirement for ID etc is classic voter suppression.
With postal voting on demand, making sure people are registered in only one place isn't.
I don't think that is reasonable or realistic, for the reasons below. It would be better, now that voter registration is tied to NI numbers, to run a low level random check on a small sample of multiply-registered voters, with accompanying publicity and severe penalties for anyone caught.
I've been calling for randomised checks into various parts of the electoral system. Not necessarily for prosecutions, but to attempt to discern the scale of any issues, if they exist. I'm amazed it's not already done.
Personation has to be fairly low-scale. Although it could just about feasibly have swung a handful of seats at the last GE, I see that as unlikely. What concerns me are more widespread forms of electoral fraud, and fortunately our current system makes that rather difficult.
Electoral law needs to be updated to reflect today's technology, rather than have parties exploit loopholes to breach spending limits or broadcasting restrictions.
People who commit fraud will mostly focus on postal votes.
Absolutely, Sean, the real problem is in the postal/proxy vote area rather than someone trying to vote twice in different polling stations or getting on the electoral roll twice in different locations.
My initial thoughts are to consider extending the period of time when it is possible to vote in person by which I mean having a single Polling Station at perhaps a Town Hall or Civic Centre open a week before an election to allow people who can't be around on the day itself an opportunity to cast a ballot in person. Only those people who apply to use the facility could use it - it wouldn't be for everyone.
Second, the notion of more mobile polling stations by which I mean allowing polling officials to visit hospitals and care homes and set up mini-stations solely for the use of patients and/or residents.
I think we should be trying to reduce the number of postal and especially proxy voters by bringing the polling process to the people in special cases rather than compelling people to attend a Polling Station (I think the overwhelming majority can and should but appreciate there are exceptions for reasons many and varied).
I cannot see a hung parliament co operating with pro-Tory voter suppression. If anyone has evidence ratber than anecdotes of students bragging on twitter then they should take it to the police under existing laws.
It's interesting how, to a Lib Dem, ensuring that people vote only once is "pro-Tory voter suppression".
It is already against the law.
Increasing the requirement for ID etc is classic voter suppression.
With postal voting on demand, making sure people are registered in only one place isn't.
I don't think that is reasonable or realistic, for the reasons below. It would be better, now that voter registration is tied to NI numbers, to run a low level random check on a small sample of multiply-registered voters, with accompanying publicity and severe penalties for anyone caught.
I've been calling for randomised checks into various parts of the electoral system. Not necessarily for prosecutions, but to attempt to discern the scale of any issues, if they exist. I'm amazed it's not already done.
Personation has to be fairly low-scale. Although it could just about feasibly have swung a handful of seats at the last GE, I see that as unlikely. What concerns me are more widespread forms of electoral fraud, and fortunately our current system makes that rather difficult.
I think that's a sensible suggestion. Currently, the process operates informally - where there are well fought campaigns, a good agent is likely to have a word with the ERO if they come across anything that looks wrong - I've had a few register entries deleted over the years by doing so, where the entry turns out to be a mistake. Anything more serious the ERO should investigate, or report to the Police. And in somewhere like NE Fife I would expect the losing agent(s) will be having a very close look at the marked register to see if they can spot any anomalies, like people found to be dead when canvassed that appear to have voted. Although the legal hurdles against taking action, and the well-known Winchester factor, discourage acting on anything other than blatant fraud.
A potential weakness is that the Police really don't like investigating electoral matters unless they absolutely have to, for a batch of mostly understandable reasons.
Re- BBC salaries. Whilst I am not really into sport at all and do not personally dislike Gary Lineker, I simply cannot understand why the BBC sees it as appropriate to pay him £2million per annum of licence-payers' money. He has never been a naturally talented broadcaster unlike - say - David Dimbleby or Paxman, and I find it difficult to believe that people tune into a BBC channel on account of his appearing there. When he first became Match of the Day anchorman back in 1996 he was utterly dreadful, and significant resources were used to train him up. Whilst he has improved over the years , even today he is no better than'adequate '- well short of the likes of Des Lynam and David Coleman. Why on earth hasthe BBC effectively wasted so much money on him when there were - and are - others more naturally skilled to do the job and who would willingly do so for a fraction of what he is paid?
Gary Lineker benefited from the move -- I was going to say fad but it has survived two decades -- to using ex-players as pundits, across sports and broadcasters, as the older non-playing broadcasters retired.
I wonder if Gary's salary at BT Sport and Bein Sports is at a similar rate?
My issue with BBC paying big for say Lineker, isn't necessarily paying big, but if you compare their workload / role to those on Sky Sports. If you work for Sky, you do the pre-match week build up, the pre-game, the game, post match, you do the interactive analysis tech, the next day wrap-up, even Sky Sports news reports.
Lineker doesn't even do every MoTD, and also moonlights on BT Sport and previously Bein Sport.
Re voting - It seems bonkers in this day and age you don't have to provide ID. Try doing anything else without, from opening a bank account to buying a kitchen knife.
I'm happy to accept AGW as proven once they can predict and it can be tested. Otherwise, I'll only go along with it being a best guess. And wait and see.
Re- BBC salaries. Whilst I am not really into sport at all and do not personally dislike Gary Lineker, I simply cannot understand why the BBC sees it as appropriate to pay him £2million per annum of licence-payers' money. He has never been a naturally talented broadcaster unlike - say - David Dimbleby or Paxman, and I find it difficult to believe that people tune into a BBC channel on account of his appearing there. When he first became Match of the Day anchorman back in 1996 he was utterly dreadful, and significant resources were used to train him up. Whilst he has improved over the years , even today he is no better than'adequate '- well short of the likes of Des Lynam and David Coleman. Why on earth hasthe BBC effectively wasted so much money on him when there were - and are - others more naturally skilled to do the job and who would willingly do so for a fraction of what he is paid?
Gary Lineker benefited from the move -- I was going to say fad but it has survived two decades -- to using ex-players as pundits, across sports and broadcasters, as the older non-playing broadcasters retired.
I wonder if Gary's salary at BT Sport and Bein Sports is at a similar rate?
My issue with BBC paying big for say Lineker, isn't necessarily paying big, but if you compare their workload / role to those on Sky Sports. If you work for Sky, you do the pre-match week build up, the pre-game, the game, post match, you do the interactive analysis tech, the next day wrap-up, even Sky Sports news reports.
Lineker doesn't even do every MoTD, and also moonlights on BT Sport and previously Bein Sport.
Quality not quantity.
Sky analysis of football is a million times better than BBC. Due to BBC losing the cricket, we got Hawkeye, Hotspot, etc and again now the analysis of cricket first on CH4 and now Sky far far better than the dull old days of the BBC tv coverage.
Thereby giving anyone actually caught an instant defence. Maybe it won't be so easy to get some prosecutions after all.
Defence? How? By "collected" they mean "stole" and all that does is add to the offences committed.
You are a student who voted at home and at university. When challenged you simply point to the article and say that your university vote was used by some random Corbynite, since you didn't use it.
Since most students vote at the same polling station, and no-one is going to risk impersonating more than one voter at a station, I would be very surprised if there was any industrial-scale personation going on, despite the obvious paranoia of Tory MPs.
Oh, I see what you mean. Good point, thanks. I was looking at it backwards/
Therefore voter photo ID is the way forward.
Photo ID will be very effective at suppressing the elderly vote. Should be very handy in the second Brexit referendum.
You really think there will be a Deal-or-no-deal referendum?
The possibility is already not insignificant, although some way from probable, and growing every day.
Not quite. There are two types of allegations, the one above and also students voting at home and in their uni town.
No doubt we need a tightening up on all this, especially registering in more than one place. With postal ballot being widely adopted the is no need for this arcane aspect of the system.
I agree students should register in one place.
The other slightly odd aspect of the present system is that students can legally vote twice in Local Elections (I think the same is true of second home owners). But not General Elections, of course.
I see no reason for this. Students (or second home owners) should be able to vote in Local elections once (like everyone else)
A local election is a local election, and no-one can vote 'twice'. A different local election is a different election.
Barring students from participating in the local politics of their university town would be utterly wrong. And, to be consistent, would require a similar clampdown on the many others in society with two homes.
I think it is wrong for undergraduate students to vote in their University towns.
They rarely spend half the year in the town, and their interest in many local matters is very limited.
You should vote where you live most of the time.
(The same is true for second home owners, it is completely wrong for them to be voting in towns where they spend four or five weeks of the year).
I would have thought most university students spend much more time at university than not? The only exception would be Oxbridge I think...
When I went in 1990 it was three 10 week terms and 22 weeks off. With Grant and very very small (first three years of) student loan. Brutal. Especially as I had 10 hours a week of lectures etc.
Thereby giving anyone actually caught an instant defence. Maybe it won't be so easy to get some prosecutions after all.
Not quite. There are two types of allegations, the one above and also students voting at home and in their uni town.
No doubt we need a tightening up on all this, especially registering in more than one place. With postal ballot being widely adopted the is no need for this arcane aspect of the system.
I cannot see a hung parliament co operating with pro-Tory voter suppression. If anyone has evidence ratber than anecdotes of students bragging on twitter then they should take it to the police under existing laws.
It's interesting how, to a Lib Dem, ensuring that people vote only once is "pro-Tory voter suppression".
It is already against the law.
Increasing the requirement for ID etc is classic voter suppression.
With postal voting on demand, making sure people are registered in only one place isn't.
I don't think that is reasonable or realistic, for the reasons below. It would be better, now that voter registration is tied to NI numbers, to run a low level random check on a small sample of multiply-registered voters, with accompanying publicity and severe penalties for anyone caught.
I've been calling for randomised checks into various parts of the electoral system. Not necessarily for prosecutions, but to attempt to discern the scale of any issues, if they exist. I'm amazed it's not already done.
Personation has to be fairly low-scale. Although it could just about feasibly have swung a handful of seats at the last GE, I see that as unlikely. What concerns me are more widespread forms of electoral fraud, and fortunately our current system makes that rather difficult.
Electoral law needs to be updated to reflect today's technology, rather than have parties exploit loopholes to breach spending limits or broadcasting restrictions.
"Electoral law needs to be updated to reflect today's technology"
Given nearly 30 million votes were cast, everyone ties themselves up in knots over what is a tiny problem and probably made no difference (except perhaps NE Fife).
Lots of indignation about students voting but the postal/proxy vote system is also flawed and open to corruption. Short of everyone being compelled to attend a polling station who wishes to vote and a retinal eye scan or similar being conducted for every voter, there is no guaranteed corruption-free system.
Democracy has always had corrupt tendencies whether through restriction of the franchise or the buying and selling of votes. We now have online vote swapping which while not illegal certainly gets some on here quite irate.
I may be naïve but I'm of the view the overwhelming majority of votes are freely and fairly obtained. Short of spending insane amounts of money on ID cards and other gadgets (which we're told we don't have (the money) and don't need (the cards)) we'll have to muddle on tightening and tweaking the system and ensuring both individuals and parties engaging in corrupt practice are prosecuted to the full extent of the law.
Personation is probably extremely rare (outside Northern Ireland and Tower Hamlets). It's high risk/low return. A few students might do it for laughs.
People who commit fraud will mostly focus on postal votes.
If you look at most count declarations, there is generally a handful of postal votes discounted because the signature on the return paper doesn't match the one on the application. Whether these purported fraudsters manage to get over this hurdle in any numbers is unclear, but would appear unlikely.
Maybe the application is fraudulent so the signatures would match.
How easy is it to use the address of a friend or relative in another constituency so as to register twice/thrice and postal vote twice/thrice?
Re- BBC salaries. Whilst I am not really into sport at all and do not personally dislike Gary Lineker, I simply cannot understand why the BBC sees it as appropriate to pay him £2million per annum of licence-payers' money. He has never been a naturally talented broadcaster unlike - say - David Dimbleby or Paxman, and I find it difficult to believe that people tune into a BBC channel on account of his appearing there. When he first became Match of the Day anchorman back in 1996 he was utterly dreadful, and significant resources were used to train him up. Whilst he has improved over the years , even today he is no better than'adequate '- well short of the likes of Des Lynam and David Coleman. Why on earth hasthe BBC effectively wasted so much money on him when there were - and are - others more naturally skilled to do the job and who would willingly do so for a fraction of what he is paid?
Gary Lineker benefited from the move -- I was going to say fad but it has survived two decades -- to using ex-players as pundits, across sports and broadcasters, as the older non-playing broadcasters retired.
I wonder if Gary's salary at BT Sport and Bein Sports is at a similar rate?
My issue with BBC paying big for say Lineker, isn't necessarily paying big, but if you compare their workload / role to those on Sky Sports. If you work for Sky, you do the pre-match week build up, the pre-game, the game, post match, the next day, even Sky Sports news reports.
Lineker doesn't even do every MoTD, and also moonlights on BT Sport and previously Bein Sport.
At base it is a market. If Sky wants Lineker, they must offer more than the BBC. If the BBC wants Lineker, they must offer more than Sky. It might not be money that is offered -- perhaps status, freedom or experimentation. One fear expressed was that publishing actors' fees might deter Hollywood stars from moonlighting at cut-price rates for the BBC lest it damage their negotiating power States-side. But really I think there are bigger problems in broadcasting than a few stars' salaries.
Re- BBC salaries. Whilst I am not really into sport at all and do not personally dislike Gary Lineker, I simply cannot understand why the BBC sees it as appropriate to pay him £2million per annum of licence-payers' money. He has never been a naturally talented broadcaster unlike - say - David Dimbleby or Paxman, and I find it difficult to believe that people tune into a BBC channel on account of his appearing there. When he first became Match of the Day anchorman back in 1996 he was utterly dreadful, and significant resources were used to train him up. Whilst he has improved over the years , even today he is no better than'adequate '- well short of the likes of Des Lynam and David Coleman. Why on earth hasthe BBC effectively wasted so much money on him when there were - and are - others more naturally skilled to do the job and who would willingly do so for a fraction of what he is paid?
Presenting a major TV show on BBC is good for your career. The likes of Paxman, Dimbleby etc. can make plenty of cash because the BBC is making them famous. So no need to pay big big wages imo.
Lineker is great and I like him. But again - no need to pay big money... People will watch match of the day almost regardless.
Thereby giving anyone actually caught an instant defence. Maybe it won't be so easy to get some prosecutions after all.
Not quite. There are two types of allegations, the one above and also students voting at home and in their uni town.
No doubt we need a tightening up on all this, especially registering in more than one place. With postal ballot being widely adopted the is no need for this arcane aspect of the system.
I cannot see a hung parliament co operating with pro-Tory voter suppression. If anyone has evidence ratber than anecdotes of students bragging on twitter then they should take it to the police under existing laws.
It's interesting how, to a Lib Dem, ensuring that people vote only once is "pro-Tory voter suppression".
It is already against the law.
Increasing the requirement for ID etc is classic voter suppression.
With postal voting on demand, making sure people are registered in only one place isn't.
There is a long standing inequality in that students get two choices of where to vote and can legally plump to influence the more marginal seat - something I very happily did back in my student days.
Out of interest do second homeowners, expatriates, travellers or other groups get choices over where to register or whether to register in multiple places? Given a lot of other groups you imagine might use such an option are likely to be right leaning, does this cancel things out a bit?
Also, given registration counts against multiple election types, taxation / representation may well demand multiple registration be possible in some circumstances. The registration need not necessarily apply to all elections (e.g. EU citizens being excluded from the Brexit vote), but if all students have to be marked as a separate category of voter that has got to have an administrative overhead.
I tend to agree that best first defence here needs to be application of the law as it currently stands.
Re AGW. GW is a demonstrable fact. Increase in greenhouse gas in the atmosphere is a demonstrable fact. Correlation of Greenhouse gas and temperature is a demonstrable fact. Therefore one merely needs to apply a little Holmes to the possible source of the greenhouse gas increase. When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however unlikely, must be the truth. Ergo, the increased release of Greenhouse gases by human industry causes GW.
Re- BBC salaries. Whilst I am not really into sport at all and do not personally dislike Gary Lineker, I simply cannot understand why the BBC sees it as appropriate to pay him £2million per annum of licence-payers' money. He has never been a naturally talented broadcaster unlike - say - David Dimbleby or Paxman, and I find it difficult to believe that people tune into a BBC channel on account of his appearing there. When he first became Match of the Day anchorman back in 1996 he was utterly dreadful, and significant resources were used to train him up. Whilst he has improved over the years , even today he is no better than'adequate '- well short of the likes of Des Lynam and David Coleman. Why on earth hasthe BBC effectively wasted so much money on him when there were - and are - others more naturally skilled to do the job and who would willingly do so for a fraction of what he is paid?
Gary Lineker benefited from the move -- I was going to say fad but it has survived two decades -- to using ex-players as pundits, across sports and broadcasters, as the older non-playing broadcasters retired.
I wonder if Gary's salary at BT Sport and Bein Sports is at a similar rate?
My issue with BBC paying big for say Lineker, isn't necessarily paying big, but if you compare their workload / role to those on Sky Sports. If you work for Sky, you do the pre-match week build up, the pre-game, the game, post match, the next day, even Sky Sports news reports.
Lineker doesn't even do every MoTD, and also moonlights on BT Sport and previously Bein Sport.
At base it is a market. If Sky wants Lineker, they must offer more than the BBC. If the BBC wants Lineker, they must offer more than Sky. It might not be money that is offered -- perhaps status, freedom or experimentation. One fear expressed was that publishing actors' fees might deter Hollywood stars from moonlighting at cut-price rates for the BBC lest it damage their negotiating power States-side. But really I think there are bigger problems in broadcasting than a few stars' salaries.
The claims of publishing stars will affect their rates is bull. All those in the industry already know the rough going rates for talent, just like they do in football. When a club comes in to poach a player they already know what they get paid. And hollywood stars doing the odd gig on an externally produced BBC show aren't part of this reveal, only full time BBC star.
However, the argument over the top 100-150 distracts from the wider issue. BBC keep saying they will reduce headcount of managers, be more efficient etc etc etc, and the result is they never do. Manager headcount is up.
Thereby giving anyone actually caught an instant defence. Maybe it won't be so easy to get some prosecutions after all.
Not quite. There are two types of allegations, the one above and also students voting at home and in their uni town.
No doubt we need a tightening up on all this, especially registering in more than one place. With postal ballot being widely adopted the is no need for this arcane aspect of the system.
I cannot see a hung parliament co operating with pro-Tory voter suppression. If anyone has evidence ratber than anecdotes of students bragging on twitter then they should take it to the police under existing laws.
It's interesting how, to a Lib Dem, ensuring that people vote only once is "pro-Tory voter suppression".
It is already against the law.
Increasing the requirement for ID etc is classic voter suppression.
With postal voting on demand, making sure people are registered in only one place isn't.
I don't think that is reasonable or realistic, for the reasons below. It would be better, now that voter registration is tied to NI numbers, to run a low level random check on a small sample of multiply-registered voters, with accompanying publicity and severe penalties for anyone caught.
That would be a reasonable solution; I don't see any need to have more laws, really, until enforcement of the existing laws is actually tried and shown to have failed.
The problem with a perception of widespread electoral fraud is that it encourages more people to try it "because the other side is doing it", like that muppet in America that IIRC was convicted a couple of weeks ago.
Mr. B2, agreed. The law appears sufficient but just isn't being applied.
As an aside, this is often the case. Big fuss. Call for legislation to be changed. Turns out that the problem was not the lack of illegality, but the lack of enforcement.
I wonder if Senior Police Chiefs should be paid according to the finding of the BCS in their area, and people who fail to achieve BCS targets fired?
The TV and radio entertainment industry being full of vastly overpaid no marks just places it alongside association football and such like as things which are crap which we perpetuate with our addiction.
Mr. Woolie, correlation is very high between drownings and ice-cream sales in the UK. If you think correlation proves causation, I'm curious as to whether you think these are mournful ice-creams bought by grieving friends and family, or swimming-retardant ice-creams that increase drowning rates?
[Obviously the third factor, the sun, affects both. But this highlights the folly of trying to use correlation as indicative of causation. There may well be evidence of global warming. But causation isn't it].
The abscence of engineers and scientists is surely another piece of evidence that politics, like character, is dispositional not intellectual.
In my forty years of working with scientists on public issues, it is striking how few of them have much knowledge of, or interest in, how the country they live in works. There is some, highly controversial, evidence that there is a genetic element to the understanding of other people, it is not evenly distributed amongst the population. Is Mr. Meeks observation of this absence of scientists/engineers in the house, in his excellent article, further evidence for this theory? Whilst there are many great scientists who have taken an active part in politics, my suspicion is that they are not proportional to their presence in the general population.
The 'two cultures' problem is hardly new but the emerging genetic science makes it even more fascinating: and very relevant to politics.
Given that PBers include quite a few 'quant people' it would be interesting to know what any of them may feel about this issue.
A lot of great scientists find it difficult to communicate with people outside their field.
And as a generalisation, I'd say they tend to have a world outlook that makes very little allowance for human nature.
Those are big drawbacks for politicians.
But engineers are in many ways the opposite: they have to work with the real world, as the real word doesn't bend to their will.
I think there might be something deeper: good scientists and engineers believe in process, in testing and planning. These are anathema to many politicians, and often the political process itself.
The great thing about science and engineering is that there's a right answer and a wrong answer.
In politics, the right answer or wrong answer is much less clear.
I'm an engineer. I'd say that applies to science, but not to engineering.
Engineering is much more about applying theory to the real world, and balancing out resource, physical, social and economic constraints in order to achieve it.
At school, engineering maths had precise answers with frictionless pulleys etc.
In the factory, everything was in a range with plus or minus something.
When it comes to TV/radio pay, I think the question you have to ask is, "is that person replaceable?"
What I find interesting about the BBC's attitude to pay is what happened with Top Gear. If ever there was an example of where the stars were irreplaceable it was Top Gear. Once the BBC decided to sack Clarkson and the other two decided to leave, that should have been that. Now maybe there is still a place for a motoring show but the BBC were utterly foolish to try to keep the show going as though nothing had happened. They were basically saying, "people watch the show irrespective of who is presenting it."
Yet when it comes to things like the News and Match of the Day, they BBC think they have to pay top dollar for the presenters.
I cannot see a hung parliament co operating with pro-Tory voter suppression. If anyone has evidence ratber than anecdotes of students bragging on twitter then they should take it to the police under existing laws.
It's interesting how, to a Lib Dem, ensuring that people vote only once is "pro-Tory voter suppression".
It is already against the law.
Increasing the requirement for ID etc is classic voter suppression.
With postal voting on demand, making sure people are registered in only one place isn't.
There is a long standing inequality in that students get two choices of where to vote and can legally plump to influence the more marginal seat - something I very happily did back in my student days.
Out of interest do second homeowners, expatriates, travellers or other groups get choices over where to register or whether to register in multiple places? Given a lot of other groups you imagine might use such an option are likely to be right leaning, does this cancel things out a bit?
Also, given registration counts against multiple election types, taxation / representation may well demand multiple registration be possible in some circumstances. The registration need not necessarily apply to all elections (e.g. EU citizens being excluded from the Brexit vote), but if all students have to be marked as a separate category of voter that has got to have an administrative overhead.
I tend to agree that best first defence here needs to be application of the law as it currently stands.
As I said below, the rules on registering more than once are much tighter than they were (although I don't think checks are being made other than on new registrations). But people with genuine multiple homes do have such a choice - and I know some Tory campaigners have in the past made a point of encouraging second home owners to vote in West Country marginal seats in preference to their home seat.
In the past, when voting was tied to class and less so to age, I expect the Tories will have been the net beneficiaries from multiple registration, through boundary reviews and a choice of where to vote (both being of course extremely minor factors), and voting in multiple local elections. Probably now, with class being almost irrelevant and age being more important, plus hugely more students than before (and landlords/holiday home owners being prevented, at least in theory), these minor advantages have swung Labour's way.
Mr. Woolie, correlation is very high between drownings and ice-cream sales in the UK. If you think correlation proves causation, I'm curious as to whether you think these are mournful ice-creams bought by grieving friends and family, or swimming-retardant ice-creams that increase drowning rates?
[Obviously the third factor, the sun, affects both. But this highlights the folly of trying to use correlation as indicative of causation. There may well be evidence of global warming. But causation isn't it].
On the other hand, when it walks like a duck, smells like a duck and quacks like a duck...........
I've been calling for randomised checks into various parts of the electoral system. Not necessarily for prosecutions, but to attempt to discern the scale of any issues, if they exist. I'm amazed it's not already done.
Personation has to be fairly low-scale. Although it could just about feasibly have swung a handful of seats at the last GE, I see that as unlikely. What concerns me are more widespread forms of electoral fraud, and fortunately our current system makes that rather difficult.
Electoral law needs to be updated to reflect today's technology, rather than have parties exploit loopholes to breach spending limits or broadcasting restrictions.
"Electoral law needs to be updated to reflect today's technology"
What changes would you want?
Party election broadcasts are strictly controlled. Party election videos on Youtube or Facebook are not. Candidates can send one message free through the post -- but as many as they like via email. That is the sort of thing I am getting at. Electoral law needs to updated, even if the new law is that parties can do whatever they like.
Mr. 1000, I agree with that entirely. It's another reason policies need more scrutiny than politicians.
Mr. 86, agree with that too. The news shouldn't change much according to which newsreader is, er, reading it, but Top Gear was/is defined by the presenters.
When it comes to TV/radio pay, I think the question you have to ask is, "is that person replaceable?"
What I find interesting about the BBC's attitude to pay is what happened with Top Gear. If ever there was an example of where the stars were irreplaceable it was Top Gear. Once the BBC decided to sack Clarkson and the other two decided to leave, that should have been that. Now maybe there is still a place for a motoring show but the BBC were utterly foolish to try to keep the show going as though nothing had happened. They were basically saying, "people watch the show irrespective of who is presenting it."
Yet when it comes to things like the News and Match of the Day, they BBC think they have to pay top dollar for the presenters.
One interesting tit bit that came out a while ago is that the auto-cuties on BBC News get £100k+ a year despite do nothing much more than reading the autocue and asking often poorly informed questions. They aren't being a journalist role. That seems a hell of a lot to me.
Where as paying Laura Kuenssberg a hefty amount to fly around the world following the PM and basically constantly being on the job 24/7 52 weeks of the year doesn't seem unreasonable. Where as Saint Gary does something like ~40 programmes a year where he is only on screen for a short period.
Where again the BBC differs from other outlets, they won't just have Laura reports carried on all their tv and radio outlets, they will replicate all this with others. You don't see that on Sky, where again with the sport analogy, they are expected to do provide the output for Sky News, Sky Sports News, Sky Sports One...It also often goes to commercial radio.
Thereby giving anyone actually caught an instant defence. Maybe it won't be so easy to get some prosecutions after all.
Not quite. There are two types of allegations, the one above and also students voting at home and in their uni town.
No doubt we need a tightening up on all this, especially registering in more than one place. With postal ballot being widely adopted the is no need for this arcane aspect of the system.
I cannot see a hung parliament co operating with pro-Tory voter suppression. If anyone has evidence ratber than anecdotes of students bragging on twitter then they should take it to the police under existing laws.
It's interesting how, to a Lib Dem, ensuring that people vote only once is "pro-Tory voter suppression".
It is already against the law.
Increasing the requirement for ID etc is classic voter suppression.
I've always thought it absurd that there is no requirement to show any form of I/D to the polling clerk. As a matter of course, one shows I/D when instructing estate agents or solicitors, or opening a bank account.
Getting the balance right is difficult. I never had a driving license until I was in my 30s, for example. And I know people - mostly older and/or relatively poor - who don't have passports.
I would have thought that there should be ID requirements, but that they should be relatively liberal: a bank card, cheque book, utility or phone bill, council tax demand, etc.
I've been calling for randomised checks into various parts of the electoral system. Not necessarily for prosecutions, but to attempt to discern the scale of any issues, if they exist. I'm amazed it's not already done.
Personation has to be fairly low-scale. Although it could just about feasibly have swung a handful of seats at the last GE, I see that as unlikely. What concerns me are more widespread forms of electoral fraud, and fortunately our current system makes that rather difficult.
Electoral law needs to be updated to reflect today's technology, rather than have parties exploit loopholes to breach spending limits or broadcasting restrictions.
"Electoral law needs to be updated to reflect today's technology"
What changes would you want?
Party election broadcasts are strictly controlled. Party election videos on Youtube or Facebook are not. Candidates can send one message free through the post -- but as many as they like via email. That is the sort of thing I am getting at. Electoral law needs to updated, even if the new law is that parties can do whatever they like.
My dad worked at Yamaha for over 30 years and they used to claim that they didn't need to pay good wages because people wanted to work for them (it was probably rubbish, but there you go). I understand that McLaren say the same, and it might be more true with them.
However, it is definitely true of the BBC. Just look at Paul Mason. All those years he spent appearing balanced and neutral as economics editor on Newsnight were well worth it.
Thereby giving anyone actually caught an instant defence. Maybe it won't be so easy to get some prosecutions after all.
Not quite. There are two types of allegations, the one above and also students voting at home and in their uni town.
No doubt we need a tightening up on all this, especially registering in more than one place. With postal ballot being widely adopted the is no need for this arcane aspect of the system.
I cannot see a hung parliament co operating with pro-Tory voter suppression. If anyone has evidence ratber than anecdotes of students bragging on twitter then they should take it to the police under existing laws.
It's interesting how, to a Lib Dem, ensuring that people vote only once is "pro-Tory voter suppression".
It is already against the law.
Increasing the requirement for ID etc is classic voter suppression.
I've always thought it absurd that there is no requirement to show any form of I/D to the polling clerk. As a matter of course, one shows I/D when instructing estate agents or solicitors, or opening a bank account.
Getting the balance right is difficult. I never had a driving license until I was in my 30s, for example. And I know people - mostly older and/or relatively poor - who don't have passports.
I would have thought that there should be ID requirements, but that they should be relatively liberal: a bank card, cheque book, utility or phone bill, council tax demand, etc.
Given nearly 30 million votes were cast, everyone ties themselves up in knots over what is a tiny problem and probably made no difference (except perhaps NE Fife).
Lots of indignation about students voting but the postal/proxy vote system is also flawed and open to corruption. Short of everyone being compelled to attend a polling station who wishes to vote and a retinal eye scan or similar being conducted for every voter, there is no guaranteed corruption-free system.
Democracy has always had corrupt tendencies whether through restriction of the franchise or the buying and selling of votes. We now have online vote swapping which while not illegal certainly gets some on here quite irate.
I may be naïve but I'm of the view the overwhelming majority of votes are freely and fairly obtained. Short of spending insane amounts of money on ID cards and other gadgets (which we're told we don't have (the money) and don't need (the cards)) we'll have to muddle on tightening and tweaking the system and ensuring both individuals and parties engaging in corrupt practice are prosecuted to the full extent of the law.
Personation is probably extremely rare (outside Northern Ireland and Tower Hamlets). It's high risk/low return. A few students might do it for laughs.
People who commit fraud will mostly focus on postal votes.
If you look at most count declarations, there is generally a handful of postal votes discounted because the signature on the return paper doesn't match the one on the application. Whether these purported fraudsters manage to get over this hurdle in any numbers is unclear, but would appear unlikely.
Maybe the application is fraudulent so the signatures would match.
How easy is it to use the address of a friend or relative in another constituency so as to register twice/thrice and postal vote twice/thrice?
Before IER, multiple registration in such a way would have been easy, as would voting, either in person or by post, if with a degree of admin/travel hassle. To make any difference, however, someone would have to arrange this on a very large scale - involving a lot of 'friends' any one of whom could bring the whole thing crashing down (at the time, or years later, when their views might have changed).
Theoretically it's possible - but there's no evidence of it having happened, and with most seats decided by majorities in the thousands, it is hard to believe that anyone would think it worth the effort or the risk. Most friends faced with such a request would surely tell someone to s*d off?
Re AGW. GW is a demonstrable fact. Increase in greenhouse gas in the atmosphere is a demonstrable fact. Correlation of Greenhouse gas and temperature is a demonstrable fact. Therefore one merely needs to apply a little Holmes to the possible source of the greenhouse gas increase. When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however unlikely, must be the truth. Ergo, the increased release of Greenhouse gases by human industry causes GW.
Or, ya know, cows farting.
Except the other possibilities have not been eliminated. We know that at least 3 times in the past 4000 years global temperatures have been substantially warmer than they are now. Unless and until we can accurately state why those temperature peaks occurred at a time when human intervention in the atmosphere was effectively zero and can eliminate that cause today, we are certainly not at the deductive moment you claim.
Also just to point out that many others making AGW claims you misunderstand the science. When John Tyndall made the original observations on greenhouse gases he did so in a contained laboratory environment and observed and recorded a basic physical principle. No one who is actually involved in climate science claims that basic principle is the direct cause of substantial warming. Nor does anyone seriously deny the effect. All the arguments revolve around feedback mechanisms and whether they are positive or negative. That is something we are still a very long way from understanding.
F1: report that Leclerc (it is he) will test for Ferrari in Hungary, and maybe Kubica for Renault.
If Kubica replaces Palmer next year (or earlier, of course) and Renault can make a significant leap forward, they might be giving Force India something to think about in 2018. A Hulkenberg-Kubica pairing would be rather good, if the Pole has retained his speed.
Re AGW. GW is a demonstrable fact. Increase in greenhouse gas in the atmosphere is a demonstrable fact. Correlation of Greenhouse gas and temperature is a demonstrable fact. Therefore one merely needs to apply a little Holmes to the possible source of the greenhouse gas increase. When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however unlikely, must be the truth. Ergo, the increased release of Greenhouse gases by human industry causes GW.
Or, ya know, cows farting.
Except the other possibilities have not been eliminated. We know that at least 3 times in the past 4000 years global temperatures have been substantially warmer than they are now. Unless and until we can accurately state why those temperature peaks occurred at a time when human intervention in the atmosphere was effectively zero and can eliminate that cause today, we are certainly not at the deductive moment you claim.
Also just to point out that many others making AGW claims you misunderstand the science. When John Tyndall made the original observations on greenhouse gases he did so in a contained laboratory environment and observed and recorded a basic physical principle. No one who is actually involved in climate science claims that basic principle is the direct cause of substantial warming. Nor does anyone seriously deny the effect. All the arguments revolve around feedback mechanisms and whether they are positive or negative. That is something we are still a very long way from understanding.
It is the pace rather than the degree of change to global temperatures that is the concerning and near-conclusive evidence.
I'm happy to accept AGW as proven once they can predict and it can be tested. Otherwise, I'll only go along with it being a best guess. And wait and see.
They make testable predictions all the time?
Yes, they do. (PDF, because the original was deleted in shame)
When it comes to TV/radio pay, I think the question you have to ask is, "is that person replaceable?"
What I find interesting about the BBC's attitude to pay is what happened with Top Gear. If ever there was an example of where the stars were irreplaceable it was Top Gear. Once the BBC decided to sack Clarkson and the other two decided to leave, that should have been that. Now maybe there is still a place for a motoring show but the BBC were utterly foolish to try to keep the show going as though nothing had happened. They were basically saying, "people watch the show irrespective of who is presenting it."
Yet when it comes to things like the News and Match of the Day, they BBC think they have to pay top dollar for the presenters.
Yes I can agree that the talent in top gear was crucial. Clarkson was reported to be the top paid BBC star though so I think they recognised that.
I don't mind them trying to keep it going - obviously some people like it, just not as much as the Clarkson and co. version.
Funny to see all the lefties at the BBC in meltdown mode this morning!
The funny thing is, the fact they appear to be paying male stars more than female stars seems to be working to their advantage as it's giving the Left something to be upset about (even if the perpetrator is the BBC!).
Thereby giving anyone actually caught an instant defence. Maybe it won't be so easy to get some prosecutions after all.
Defence? How? By "collected" they mean "stole" and all that does is add to the offences committed.
You are a student who voted at home and at university. When challenged you simply point to the article and say that your university vote was used by some random Corbynite, since you didn't use it.
Since most students vote at the same polling station, and no-one is going to risk impersonating more than one voter at a station, I would be very surprised if there was any industrial-scale personation going on, despite the obvious paranoia of Tory MPs.
Oh, I see what you mean. Good point, thanks. I was looking at it backwards/
Therefore voter photo ID is the way forward.
Photo ID will be very effective at suppressing the elderly vote. Should be very handy in the second Brexit referendum.
You really think there will be a Deal-or-no-deal referendum?
The possibility is already not insignificant, although some way from probable, and growing every day.
Well, it would be nuts, but the Greeks did it I suppose.
Re AGW. GW is a demonstrable fact. Increase in greenhouse gas in the atmosphere is a demonstrable fact. Correlation of Greenhouse gas and temperature is a demonstrable fact. Therefore one merely needs to apply a little Holmes to the possible source of the greenhouse gas increase. When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however unlikely, must be the truth. Ergo, the increased release of Greenhouse gases by human industry causes GW.
Or, ya know, cows farting.
Except the other possibilities have not been eliminated. We know that at least 3 times in the past 4000 years global temperatures have been substantially warmer than they are now. Unless and until we can accurately state why those temperature peaks occurred at a time when human intervention in the atmosphere was effectively zero and can eliminate that cause today, we are certainly not at the deductive moment you claim.
Also just to point out that many others making AGW claims you misunderstand the science. When John Tyndall made the original observations on greenhouse gases he did so in a contained laboratory environment and observed and recorded a basic physical principle. No one who is actually involved in climate science claims that basic principle is the direct cause of substantial warming. Nor does anyone seriously deny the effect. All the arguments revolve around feedback mechanisms and whether they are positive or negative. That is something we are still a very long way from understanding.
It is the pace rather than the degree of change to global temperatures that is the concerning and near-conclusive evidence.
Neither the pace nor the extent of the change is unusual in geological nor historical time.
Mr. Woolie, correlation is very high between drownings and ice-cream sales in the UK. If you think correlation proves causation, I'm curious as to whether you think these are mournful ice-creams bought by grieving friends and family, or swimming-retardant ice-creams that increase drowning rates?
[Obviously the third factor, the sun, affects both. But this highlights the folly of trying to use correlation as indicative of causation. There may well be evidence of global warming. But causation isn't it].
Correlation may indicate a linkage.
The amount of sun may be the common driver of icecream sales and drownings.
In the same way it was once suggested that the common driver of the link between cigarette smoking and lung cancer was that extrovert people and coffee drinking people were more susceptible to lung cancer and to smoke.
When it comes to TV/radio pay, I think the question you have to ask is, "is that person replaceable?"
What I find interesting about the BBC's attitude to pay is what happened with Top Gear. If ever there was an example of where the stars were irreplaceable it was Top Gear. Once the BBC decided to sack Clarkson and the other two decided to leave, that should have been that. Now maybe there is still a place for a motoring show but the BBC were utterly foolish to try to keep the show going as though nothing had happened. They were basically saying, "people watch the show irrespective of who is presenting it."
Yet when it comes to things like the News and Match of the Day, they BBC think they have to pay top dollar for the presenters.
Yes I can agree that the talent in top gear was crucial. Clarkson was reported to be the top paid BBC star though so I think they recognised that.
I don't mind them trying to keep it going - obviously some people like it, just not as much as the Clarkson and co. version.
Clarkson's pay was much more complicated, as he and Wilman until the last series owned a significant stake in the rights / IP. He wasn't been paid to be the presenter as such, he made all the money from the fact they developed the Top Gear brand and then they flogged it around the world.
The Hamster and May were on peanuts in comparison...well until the Amazon deal. Also, unlike say Lineker, they had them pimped out on all sorts of other BBC shows.
Re AGW. GW is a demonstrable fact. Increase in greenhouse gas in the atmosphere is a demonstrable fact. Correlation of Greenhouse gas and temperature is a demonstrable fact. Therefore one merely needs to apply a little Holmes to the possible source of the greenhouse gas increase. When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however unlikely, must be the truth. Ergo, the increased release of Greenhouse gases by human industry causes GW.
I'm happy to accept AGW as proven once they can predict and it can be tested. Otherwise, I'll only go along with it being a best guess. And wait and see.
They make testable predictions all the time?
Yes, they do. (PDF, because the original was deleted in shame)
Course the earnings of the BBC's "stars" is one point but the real issue is how much tax are they paying HMRC on these earnings?
And how many are (legally) limiting their tax take while taking to Twitter 24/7 to show the world how moral and virtuous they are...
I understood from what was said this morning that these specific payments are directly from the BBC and do not include any 'stars' who are paid through other companies.
Re- BBC salaries. Whilst I am not really into sport at all and do not personally dislike Gary Lineker, I simply cannot understand why the BBC sees it as appropriate to pay him £2million per annum of licence-payers' money. He has never been a naturally talented broadcaster unlike - say - David Dimbleby or Paxman, and I find it difficult to believe that people tune into a BBC channel on account of his appearing there. When he first became Match of the Day anchorman back in 1996 he was utterly dreadful, and significant resources were used to train him up. Whilst he has improved over the years , even today he is no better than'adequate '- well short of the likes of Des Lynam and David Coleman. Why on earth hasthe BBC effectively wasted so much money on him when there were - and are - others more naturally skilled to do the job and who would willingly do so for a fraction of what he is paid?
Gary Lineker benefited from the move -- I was going to say fad but it has survived two decades -- to using ex-players as pundits, across sports and broadcasters, as the older non-playing broadcasters retired.
Almost all football presenters are journalists not ex players. Lineker is the only one I can think of
Course the earnings of the BBC's "stars" is one point but the real issue is how much tax are they paying HMRC on these earnings?
And how many are (legally) limiting their tax take while taking to Twitter 24/7 to show the world how moral and virtuous they are...
I understood from what was said this morning that these specific payments are directly from the BBC and do not include any 'stars' who are paid through other companies.
Or paid via BBC Worldwide and other BBC commercial arms...
I've been calling for randomised checks into various parts of the electoral system. Not necessarily for prosecutions, but to attempt to discern the scale of any issues, if they exist. I'm amazed it's not already done.
Personation has to be fairly low-scale. Although it could just about feasibly have swung a handful of seats at the last GE, I see that as unlikely. What concerns me are more widespread forms of electoral fraud, and fortunately our current system makes that rather difficult.
Electoral law needs to be updated to reflect today's technology, rather than have parties exploit loopholes to breach spending limits or broadcasting restrictions.
"Electoral law needs to be updated to reflect today's technology"
What changes would you want?
Party election broadcasts are strictly controlled. Party election videos on Youtube or Facebook are not. Candidates can send one message free through the post -- but as many as they like via email. That is the sort of thing I am getting at. Electoral law needs to updated, even if the new law is that parties can do whatever they like.
There's some interesting points there, and it's a difficult issue. I may change my view with more thought, but I feel that the important factor is financial accessibility to all candidates.
Currently, there is nothing stopping me from standing as a candidate. If I were to do so, it wold not cost me a penny (ISP cost nothwithstanding) to send 100, 1000 or even 1,000,000 emails out. Likewise, I could create a YouTube channel and create ranting videos about why you should vote for me: how HS2 is necessary and why we should all be excellent to one another
I am not barred from doing so by finance. This means that emails and unpaid services should probably not be part of election expenses.
Paid-for services should: e.g. if you pay Facebook or Twitter to target your videos at certain demographics.
There are other problems with restricting things like email: you will have supporters that need to be contacted. Is sending out an email an election expense? What about to people who've pre-registered to receive campaign emails? What about people who, unbeknownst to you, send emails out supporting your cause? The corner- and edge-cases would be manyfold.
Re- BBC salaries. Whilst I am not really into sport at all and do not personally dislike Gary Lineker, I simply cannot understand why the BBC sees it as appropriate to pay him £2million per annum of licence-payers' money. He has never been a naturally talented broadcaster unlike - say - David Dimbleby or Paxman, and I find it difficult to believe that people tune into a BBC channel on account of his appearing there. When he first became Match of the Day anchorman back in 1996 he was utterly dreadful, and significant resources were used to train him up. Whilst he has improved over the years , even today he is no better than'adequate '- well short of the likes of Des Lynam and David Coleman. Why on earth hasthe BBC effectively wasted so much money on him when there were - and are - others more naturally skilled to do the job and who would willingly do so for a fraction of what he is paid?
Gary Lineker benefited from the move -- I was going to say fad but it has survived two decades -- to using ex-players as pundits, across sports and broadcasters, as the older non-playing broadcasters retired.
Almost all football presenters are journalists not ex players. Lineker is the only one I can think of
Bob Wilson did some presenting back in the day and I always thought he was very good.
Re- BBC salaries. Whilst I am not really into sport at all and do not personally dislike Gary Lineker, I simply cannot understand why the BBC sees it as appropriate to pay him £2million per annum of licence-payers' money. He has never been a naturally talented broadcaster unlike - say - David Dimbleby or Paxman, and I find it difficult to believe that people tune into a BBC channel on account of his appearing there. When he first became Match of the Day anchorman back in 1996 he was utterly dreadful, and significant resources were used to train him up. Whilst he has improved over the years , even today he is no better than'adequate '- well short of the likes of Des Lynam and David Coleman. Why on earth hasthe BBC effectively wasted so much money on him when there were - and are - others more naturally skilled to do the job and who would willingly do so for a fraction of what he is paid?
Gary Lineker benefited from the move -- I was going to say fad but it has survived two decades -- to using ex-players as pundits, across sports and broadcasters, as the older non-playing broadcasters retired.
Almost all football presenters are journalists not ex players. Lineker is the only one I can think of
The thing with Lineker as well is I don't think he is really in touch with modern football tactics and training.
Yes of course he still hangs out and talks with players, but you listen to say Gary Neville who is still very much up with the latest theories and has all the modern coaching badges etc, and it feels like you are comparing to people's experiences of internet via dial-up vs fibre.
Watching BBC "analysis" of football I feel like I am losing IQ points compared to Sky's. But then watching ITVs, I feel like I might have totally lost my mind.
I've been calling for randomised checks into various parts of the electoral system. Not necessarily for prosecutions, but to attempt to discern the scale of any issues, if they exist. I'm amazed it's not already done.
Personation has to be fairly low-scale. Although it could just about feasibly have swung a handful of seats at the last GE, I see that as unlikely. What concerns me are more widespread forms of electoral fraud, and fortunately our current system makes that rather difficult.
Electoral law needs to be updated to reflect today's technology, rather than have parties exploit loopholes to breach spending limits or broadcasting restrictions.
"Electoral law needs to be updated to reflect today's technology"
What changes would you want?
Party election broadcasts are strictly controlled. Party election videos on Youtube or Facebook are not. Candidates can send one message free through the post -- but as many as they like via email. That is the sort of thing I am getting at. Electoral law needs to updated, even if the new law is that parties can do whatever they like.
There's some interesting points there, and it's a difficult issue. I may change my view with more thought, but I feel that the important factor is financial accessibility to all candidates.
Currently, there is nothing stopping me from standing as a candidate. If I were to do so, it wold not cost me a penny (ISP cost nothwithstanding) to send 100, 1000 or even 1,000,000 emails out. Likewise, I could create a YouTube channel and create ranting videos about why you should vote for me: how HS2 is necessary and why we should all be excellent to one another
I am not barred from doing so by finance. This means that emails and unpaid services should probably not be part of election expenses.
Paid-for services should: e.g. if you pay Facebook or Twitter to target your videos at certain demographics.
There are other problems with restricting things like email: you will have supporters that need to be contacted. Is sending out an email an election expense? What about to people who've pre-registered to receive campaign emails? What about people who, unbeknownst to you, send emails out supporting your cause? The corner- and edge-cases would be manyfold.
How/where are you going to get these 1,000,000 email addresses?!
Re- BBC salaries. Whilst I am not really into sport at all and do not personally dislike Gary Lineker, I simply cannot understand why the BBC sees it as appropriate to pay him £2million per annum of licence-payers' money. He has never been a naturally talented broadcaster unlike - say - David Dimbleby or Paxman, and I find it difficult to believe that people tune into a BBC channel on account of his appearing there. When he first became Match of the Day anchorman back in 1996 he was utterly dreadful, and significant resources were used to train him up. Whilst he has improved over the years , even today he is no better than'adequate '- well short of the likes of Des Lynam and David Coleman. Why on earth hasthe BBC effectively wasted so much money on him when there were - and are - others more naturally skilled to do the job and who would willingly do so for a fraction of what he is paid?
Gary Lineker benefited from the move -- I was going to say fad but it has survived two decades -- to using ex-players as pundits, across sports and broadcasters, as the older non-playing broadcasters retired.
Almost all football presenters are journalists not ex players. Lineker is the only one I can think of
I don't follow football, and I can only name two presenters: Linekar and Kamara (?sp) (*). Both ex footballers.
(*) I know him from adverts outside the village's bookies, and from Ninja Warrior.
Comments
I thought the reason you can vote in multiple local authorities is that they are legally entirely separate elections. It's like voting in a local election and a general election on the same day. The votes cast in one don't affect the other.
I thought you were against that sort of thing?
The culture at my (grammar) school was that self promotion was infradig and uncool.
(Also, I don't see this crisp salesman fellow offering 250/1 winning tips).
They rarely spend half the year in the town, and their interest in many local matters is very limited.
You should vote where you live most of the time.
(The same is true for second home owners, it is completely wrong for them to be voting in towns where they spend four or five weeks of the year).
That would be really cunning voter suppression by the Left. Support compulsory photo ID for voting and then take away free OAP bus passes
However there are plenty of people with two homes - a weekend country retreat, for example, who currently register twice and are able to vote in all local elections.
The "only vote once in local elections" argument is a nonsense, not least because I bet people wouldn't object if person X with the two homes voted once in a provincial local election this year and once in a London local election next year. As would someone who had moved to London in the year between the elections.
It's luck of the draw whether local elections fall on the same or different dates, depending on where your second home might be.
That'd cull a few of us reprobates from the electoral roll.
You cannot really be a part-time scientist or engineer. It's full on. To get anywhere in politics you have to do a lot of donkey work and attend a whole heap of meetings in order to build contacts and get noticed - and have the skill-sets to do that. This suits people in professions like the law and teaching, as well as those who have spent their whole working lives in and around the political world. Also, if you take five or 10 years out from, say, the law, you can catch up again relatively easily. Catching up on 10 years of developments in molecular physics or particle engineering is going to be a whole lot trickier.
In China, the entire politburo have engineering/science backgrounds. But they do not have democracy to worry about.
Given nearly 30 million votes were cast, everyone ties themselves up in knots over what is a tiny problem and probably made no difference (except perhaps NE Fife).
Lots of indignation about students voting but the postal/proxy vote system is also flawed and open to corruption. Short of everyone being compelled to attend a polling station who wishes to vote and a retinal eye scan or similar being conducted for every voter, there is no guaranteed corruption-free system.
Democracy has always had corrupt tendencies whether through restriction of the franchise or the buying and selling of votes. We now have online vote swapping which while not illegal certainly gets some on here quite irate.
I may be naïve but I'm of the view the overwhelming majority of votes are freely and fairly obtained. Short of spending insane amounts of money on ID cards and other gadgets (which we're told we don't have (the money) and don't need (the cards)) we'll have to muddle on tightening and tweaking the system and ensuring both individuals and parties engaging in corrupt practice are prosecuted to the full extent of the law.
Engineering is much more about applying theory to the real world, and balancing out resource, physical, social and economic constraints in order to achieve it.
People who commit fraud will mostly focus on postal votes.
As an interesting if minor technical aside, the ability to register more than once is of course a flaw in the 'fairness' argument advanced in support of boundary review 'equalisation', since clearly those constituencies with more second home/student registrations will tend to be drawn smaller (in terms of actual voters) as a consequence.
Personation has to be fairly low-scale. Although it could just about feasibly have swung a handful of seats at the last GE, I see that as unlikely. What concerns me are more widespread forms of electoral fraud, and fortunately our current system makes that rather difficult.
It was embarrassing to watch and made Dennis Skinner look reasonable.
https://order-order.com/2017/07/19/corbyn-deletes-tweet-attacking-labour-run-welsh-nhs/
My issue with BBC paying big for say Lineker, isn't necessarily paying big, but if you compare their workload / role to those on Sky Sports. If you work for Sky, you do the pre-match week build up, the pre-game, the game, post match, you do the interactive analysis tech, the next day wrap-up, even Sky Sports news reports.
Lineker doesn't even do every MoTD, and also moonlights on BT Sport and previously Bein Sport.
The only exception would be Oxbridge I think...
My initial thoughts are to consider extending the period of time when it is possible to vote in person by which I mean having a single Polling Station at perhaps a Town Hall or Civic Centre open a week before an election to allow people who can't be around on the day itself an opportunity to cast a ballot in person. Only those people who apply to use the facility could use it - it wouldn't be for everyone.
Second, the notion of more mobile polling stations by which I mean allowing polling officials to visit hospitals and care homes and set up mini-stations solely for the use of patients and/or residents.
I think we should be trying to reduce the number of postal and especially proxy voters by bringing the polling process to the people in special cases rather than compelling people to attend a Polling Station (I think the overwhelming majority can and should but appreciate there are exceptions for reasons many and varied).
A potential weakness is that the Police really don't like investigating electoral matters unless they absolutely have to, for a batch of mostly understandable reasons.
http://www.climateprediction.eu/cc/Main/Entries/2017/1/21_Prediction_of_Monthly_Global_Temperatures_-_Update_(3).html
https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/03/15/the-first-climate-model-turns-50-and-predicted-global-warming-almost-perfectly/amp/
What changes would you want?
Maybe the application is fraudulent so the signatures would match.
How easy is it to use the address of a friend or relative in another constituency so as to register twice/thrice and postal vote twice/thrice?
https://twitter.com/bbcpress/status/887582849041408000
I guess this means the BBC was getting above inflation increases to the licence fee during when Labour were in power.
Lineker is great and I like him. But again - no need to pay big money...
People will watch match of the day almost regardless.
Out of interest do second homeowners, expatriates, travellers or other groups get choices over where to register or whether to register in multiple places? Given a lot of other groups you imagine might use such an option are likely to be right leaning, does this cancel things out a bit?
Also, given registration counts against multiple election types, taxation / representation may well demand multiple registration be possible in some circumstances. The registration need not necessarily apply to all elections (e.g. EU citizens being excluded from the Brexit vote), but if all students have to be marked as a separate category of voter that has got to have an administrative overhead.
I tend to agree that best first defence here needs to be application of the law as it currently stands.
Or, ya know, cows farting.
However, the argument over the top 100-150 distracts from the wider issue. BBC keep saying they will reduce headcount of managers, be more efficient etc etc etc, and the result is they never do. Manager headcount is up.
The problem with a perception of widespread electoral fraud is that it encourages more people to try it "because the other side is doing it", like that muppet in America that IIRC was convicted a couple of weeks ago.
I wonder if Senior Police Chiefs should be paid according to the finding of the BCS in their area, and people who fail to achieve BCS targets fired?
[Obviously the third factor, the sun, affects both. But this highlights the folly of trying to use correlation as indicative of causation. There may well be evidence of global warming. But causation isn't it].
At school, engineering maths had precise answers with frictionless pulleys etc.
In the factory, everything was in a range with plus or minus something.
What I find interesting about the BBC's attitude to pay is what happened with Top Gear. If ever there was an example of where the stars were irreplaceable it was Top Gear. Once the BBC decided to sack Clarkson and the other two decided to leave, that should have been that. Now maybe there is still a place for a motoring show but the BBC were utterly foolish to try to keep the show going as though nothing had happened. They were basically saying, "people watch the show irrespective of who is presenting it."
Yet when it comes to things like the News and Match of the Day, they BBC think they have to pay top dollar for the presenters.
In the past, when voting was tied to class and less so to age, I expect the Tories will have been the net beneficiaries from multiple registration, through boundary reviews and a choice of where to vote (both being of course extremely minor factors), and voting in multiple local elections. Probably now, with class being almost irrelevant and age being more important, plus hugely more students than before (and landlords/holiday home owners being prevented, at least in theory), these minor advantages have swung Labour's way.
Mr. 86, agree with that too. The news shouldn't change much according to which newsreader is, er, reading it, but Top Gear was/is defined by the presenters.
Where as paying Laura Kuenssberg a hefty amount to fly around the world following the PM and basically constantly being on the job 24/7 52 weeks of the year doesn't seem unreasonable. Where as Saint Gary does something like ~40 programmes a year where he is only on screen for a short period.
Where again the BBC differs from other outlets, they won't just have Laura reports carried on all their tv and radio outlets, they will replicate all this with others. You don't see that on Sky, where again with the sport analogy, they are expected to do provide the output for Sky News, Sky Sports News, Sky Sports One...It also often goes to commercial radio.
I would have thought that there should be ID requirements, but that they should be relatively liberal: a bank card, cheque book, utility or phone bill, council tax demand, etc.
https://www.markpack.org.uk/130283/internet-speeds-up-the-killing-off-of-expense-controls-in-marginal-seats/
However, it is definitely true of the BBC. Just look at Paul Mason. All those years he spent appearing balanced and neutral as economics editor on Newsnight were well worth it.
Funny to see all the lefties at the BBC in meltdown mode this morning!
Theoretically it's possible - but there's no evidence of it having happened, and with most seats decided by majorities in the thousands, it is hard to believe that anyone would think it worth the effort or the risk. Most friends faced with such a request would surely tell someone to s*d off?
Also just to point out that many others making AGW claims you misunderstand the science. When John Tyndall made the original observations on greenhouse gases he did so in a contained laboratory environment and observed and recorded a basic physical principle. No one who is actually involved in climate science claims that basic principle is the direct cause of substantial warming. Nor does anyone seriously deny the effect. All the arguments revolve around feedback mechanisms and whether they are positive or negative. That is something we are still a very long way from understanding.
If Kubica replaces Palmer next year (or earlier, of course) and Renault can make a significant leap forward, they might be giving Force India something to think about in 2018. A Hulkenberg-Kubica pairing would be rather good, if the Pole has retained his speed.
http://news.sky.com/story/thank-cod-for-that-your-favourite-fish-is-back-on-the-menu-10953556
Cod stocks at their highest level since 1982. So presumably we can expect prices to return to a more sensible level?
No... Thought not!
I don't mind them trying to keep it going - obviously some people like it, just not as much as the Clarkson and co. version.
The amount of sun may be the common driver of icecream sales and drownings.
In the same way it was once suggested that the common driver of the link between cigarette smoking and lung cancer was that extrovert people and coffee drinking people were more susceptible to lung cancer and to smoke.
I think the last series of Top Gear got beaten in the ratings by an Antiques Roadshow repeat.
The Hamster and May were on peanuts in comparison...well until the Amazon deal. Also, unlike say Lineker, they had them pimped out on all sorts of other BBC shows.
https://www.google.com/amp/www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/01/12/often-does-snow-fall-uk-getting-rarer/amp/
Or is it just that some moron journalist made a sensationalist headline...
And how many are (legally) limiting their tax take while taking to Twitter 24/7 to show the world how moral and virtuous they are...
Currently, there is nothing stopping me from standing as a candidate. If I were to do so, it wold not cost me a penny (ISP cost nothwithstanding) to send 100, 1000 or even 1,000,000 emails out. Likewise, I could create a YouTube channel and create ranting videos about why you should vote for me: how HS2 is necessary and why we should all be excellent to one another
I am not barred from doing so by finance. This means that emails and unpaid services should probably not be part of election expenses.
Paid-for services should: e.g. if you pay Facebook or Twitter to target your videos at certain demographics.
There are other problems with restricting things like email: you will have supporters that need to be contacted. Is sending out an email an election expense? What about to people who've pre-registered to receive campaign emails? What about people who, unbeknownst to you, send emails out supporting your cause? The corner- and edge-cases would be manyfold.
That's about half what Clarkson and co. managed in their prime but it's still a lot of people.
John Barnes on Channel 5 on the other hand...
Yes of course he still hangs out and talks with players, but you listen to say Gary Neville who is still very much up with the latest theories and has all the modern coaching badges etc, and it feels like you are comparing to people's experiences of internet via dial-up vs fibre.
Watching BBC "analysis" of football I feel like I am losing IQ points compared to Sky's. But then watching ITVs, I feel like I might have totally lost my mind.
(*) I know him from adverts outside the village's bookies, and from Ninja Warrior.